Christian doublespeak? Say it ain't so!

Originally posted by DeathbecomesLife
They are demanded to give something the worshipful master knows they do not have to give. Thereby feeling guilty and inadequate that they are
unprepared even though they were made that way be a supposed brother.

There is no guilt implied or intended as explained by the Master, but you would have know this if you actually particpated in the ritual. Stop
embarassing yourself by trying to teach us about ritual that you have little to no knowledge of.

Originally posted by DeathbecomesLife
They are demanded to give something the worshipful master knows they do not have to give. Thereby feeling guilty and inadequate that they are
unprepared even though they were made that way be a supposed brother.

There is no guilt implied or intended as explained by the Master, but you would have know this if you actually particpated in the ritual. Stop
embarassing yourself by trying to teach us about ritual that you have little to no knowledge of.

Let this be a striking lesson to your conscience should you ever meet a man, more especially a Brother mason, in like condition...

If you strike someones conscience, what feelings are you trying to invoke?

The only possibility of a "devil" existing as some sort of entity and/or "power and principality" would reside in a hiearchy of an evil empire
(Babylon) engaged in occult magic and/or blood sacrifice/ritual (which can also occur through warfare) that is at odds with the universal principals
of God and Godliness ie: brotherly love, Justice and Mercy, etc.

Any top down, or bottom up hiearchy, that is based on principals of dominatation and submission, divide and conquor, or which promote rebellion
against God's spiritual authority, are satanic, and whoever or whatever, sits atop the apex of such structures, could be considered the devil, whether
of this world, or another.

Wherever you see hierarchy serving still higher powers, enaged in ideas and occult rituals/practices involving magic, be very very leary.

"Our Liberation is God's compulsion."
~ C.S. Lewis

Re: The GAOTU - let's just hope he's not an imposter utilizing an infrastructure of occult symbolism, an easy task, and an effective way to
"administer" things, and draw people in a certain direction if you were the "devil".

After all, the actual creator-God did leave the tools of creation lying all over the place to be easily appropriated by individuals with nefarious
intent of the will, the difference being that some think they OWN them, while others recognize that they are only on loan..

I didn't read everything in this thread, so if this is repeating stuff, my apologies!!
peace,
AB

"The Problem Of Evil" or Good v Evil, God v. Evil. This is a common logical problem:

Logical problem of evil
One example among many of a formulation of the problem of evil is often attributed to Epicurus[9] and may be schematized as follows:
If an all-powerful and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not.
There is evil in the world.
Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good god does not exist.
This argument is of the logically valid form modus tollens. In this case, P is "God exists" and Q is "there is no evil in the world".
Since it is unclear precisely how the antecedent of the first premise of the epicurean argument entails the consequent, later versions have been
offered such as:[2]
God exists.
God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do
so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.
Evil exists (logical contradiction).
Versions such as these are referred to as the logical problem of evil. They attempt to show that the assumed propositions lead to a logical
contradiction and cannot therefore all be correct. Most philosophical debate has focused on the propositions stating that God cannot exist with, or
would want to prevent, all evils (premises No. 3 and No. 6), with defenders of theism arguing that God could very well exist with and allow evil in
order to achieve a greater good.
One greater good that has been proposed is that of free will, famously argued for in Plantinga's free will defense. The first part of this defense
accounts for moral evil as the result of free human action. The second part of this defense argues for the logical possibility of "a mighty nonhuman
spirit"[10] such as Satan who is responsible for so-called 'natural evils', including earthquakes, tidal waves, and virulent diseases. Many
philosophers accept that Plantinga successfully solves the logical problem of evil,[11], as he appears to have shown that God and evil are logically
compatible, though others demur[12].

In other words, mental contortion is involved in solving the Duality paradox!!!

Another "answer" to the "problem of evil" is: God is Light - Evil is absence of Light and not a "thing unto itself."

People need to grow thicker skin. Just because a website is devoted to debunking, disproving, or disagreeing with certain things it does not
automatically make it a "hate" site. Now, I haven't scoured the site the OP posted, but I did take a quick look at it, and it doesn't sound like a
hate site to me.

Now, in the Christian worldview, Satan and God are not equals. That pretty much destroys dualism right there, as far as Christianity is concerned. God
can get rid of Satan whenever He so chooses. They are not struggling with one another in the Zoroastrian, or Confucian sense of the word.

If God is omnipotent, then what the hell does a "revolt" mean? Do you understand the term omnipotent?

If you believe in an omnipotent being, that being knows everything and is capable of everything, all the time, and a revolt doesn't happen without
God allowing it to happen, and it ends when God decides it will end. The very idea of some power struggle would mean you just don't comprehend the
term omnipotent. There is no power struggle, there is only God! If you believe in an omnipotent and omnipresent being, there is no place, and no
time ever in eternity where God is not present. There isn't a time or a place ever in eternity where God is not completely in control.

satan is real and he is a tool for strong delusion among other things.
He is used to weed out the faithless in the end.
You believe in air yet you only see and feel its effects.

Check out the link given by Masonic Light, he is right. Very good article.

I want to give you an illustration: do you play pc games? I don't. When my sons and husband play these war games I can't tell how they know who to
shoot. "How do you know?" I ask. "They don't have a uniform on or anything how do you know who the bad guys are?"

They answer, you just start playing the game and you learn who the enemy is as you go along. The same goes for whether or not there is a devil.
Personally I know I have one and he hates my ever loving guts!

I guess it's always about the other guys, right? If you perceive the other guy to be engaged in double standards and hypocrisy, you get carte blanche
to do the same or worse without being guilty of what you feel the other side if guilty of? Slippery slope indeed.

You had some bad experiences with people of a certain faith so you justify making sweeping generalizations that carelessly spill onto innocents, some
of which sounds remarkably hateful? I know for a fact you get super worked up when anyone even dares to chastise the whole of Freemasonry with
sweeping generalizations motivated by the actions of a very limited few, I've seen you do it numerous times and I'm still new here.

You seem somewhat out of control with the hate and contempt you vocalize against Christianity, and your subscription to Freemasonry seems to only fuel
your righteous indignation instead of help you rise above acting in a way which casts a negative light on FM. (my opinion based off nothing more than
observation of your posts)

I know better than to judge your entire brotherhood on your actions and persona, otherwise you'd leave me literally no choice but to perceive the
whole as a hate group.

This is why when the nervous candidate stands their embarrassed and empty handed he is then told:

And the ritual says:

This was not done to triffle with or embarass your feelings, but to be a striking lesson to your conscience...

Yes, it is to instill empathy and compassion, but by embarrassing the candidate and showing him a short coming he was purposely prepared to
have.

How is it meant to embarass the candidate when it is expressly explained that it is not meant to by the very piece of ritual you quoted? Do you think
everyone has as serious of a reading comprehension issue as you appear to have?

Now unless we care to reveal the entire ritual to the light of day, perhaps it best we just conclude here.

The ritual has been in the public domain centuries before you darkened the Earth with your presence, 'reveal' what ever you want. It is obvious
that even this 300+ year head start has not helped you comprehend it any better....

edit on 19-6-2012 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer

You could have just said that it was propaganda and I would've agreed. The truth of the matter remains.
I do not believe science is actually out to get God either. Nor do I subscribe to such a fear.
However
point taken.

Yes, it is to instill empathy and compassion, but by embarrassing the candidate and showing him a short coming he was purposely prepared to
have.

How is it meant to embarass the candidate when it is expressly explained that it is not meant to by the very piece of ritual you quoted? Do you think
everyone has as serious of a reading comprehension issue as you appear to have?

Because you tell them after the fact!

If they were not embarrassed, you would not tell them it wasn't meant to embarrass them.

Though you know it is embarrassing, you do it time and time again, always clarifying the matter after the candidate puts his empty hands out in
defeat.

You set them up, embarrass them, then say it wasn't meant to embarrass them.

The point of my post was not to defend one of the arguments, nor to detract from the free-will issue (which is on the link I provided - there are many
approaches to the problem of evil there which make for an interesting read).

My point was that the argument of duality has occurred for hundreds of years - with people still arguing about which argument is "right." So, the
freewill argument may very well make the issue of God v Evil null and void - and it does according to some proponents, and it does not according to
others. The link has what seems to be a very good introduction to most, if not all, the basic arguments. Food for thought.

If they were not embarrassed, you would not tell them it wasn't meant to embarrass them.

Though you know it is embarrassing, you do it time and time again, always clarifying the matter after the candidate puts his empty hands out in
defeat.

You set them up, embarrass them, then say it wasn't meant to embarrass them.

I actually agree with you. It is designed to be memorable, and the WM does ask them for something of value, so it is obviously a setup.

Still..... who cares?

We are not attempting to be like Jesus, we are attempting to use allegory and symbology and memorable examples to teach Masonic lessons of brotherly
love and charity. Jesus already did it his way, and there is a church on every corner teaching the way of Jesus, so they don't really need us adding
to all of that.

So, although I agree with you that we do set up the candidate to make the experience memorable and drive home a lesson, I also say..... who cares?

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I actually agree with you. It is designed to be memorable, and the WM does ask them for something of value, so it is obviously a setup.

Still..... who cares?

We are not attempting to be like Jesus, we are attempting to use allegory and symbology and memorable examples to teach Masonic lessons of brotherly
love and charity. Jesus already did it his way, and there is a church on every corner teaching the way of Jesus, so they don't really need us adding
to all of that.

So, although I agree with you that we do set up the candidate to make the experience memorable and drive home a lesson, I also say..... who cares?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.